Table of Contents

Decision-Making in the Juvenile Justice System in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3581)

Principal Investigator(s):Sarri, Rosemary, University of Michigan. Institute for Social Research. Center for Political Studies

Summary:

The goals of the juvenile justice system in the United
States have always been multiple, beginning with rehabilitation, the
primary goal when the juvenile court was established. More recently,
policies advocating accountability seem to have predominated over
other goals of the court, and concern exists that structured
decision-making (SDM) in support of individual accountability has
begun to fundamentally change the juvenile justice system. This study
examined the use of SDM in state correctional agencies in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan,... (more info)

The goals of the juvenile justice system in the United
States have always been multiple, beginning with rehabilitation, the
primary goal when the juvenile court was established. More recently,
policies advocating accountability seem to have predominated over
other goals of the court, and concern exists that structured
decision-making (SDM) in support of individual accountability has
begun to fundamentally change the juvenile justice system. This study
examined the use of SDM in state correctional agencies in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio and in juvenile courts in three counties
in each of those states. Data were collected in phases from March 1999
to August 2000 during periodic site visits. Probation officers, judges
and referees, prosecutors, and defense attorneys were interviewed in
each of the 12 courts. Each survey contained a core set of questions
eliciting respondents' views of juvenile justice, disposition
objectives, and the use and value of SDM. Questions relevant to
particular decision-makers were also included. All respondents
provided demographic information and information about their job
experience in criminal justice and professional training.

Guidelines for Applying for Restricted Data

Before you begin an application you will need the following information to complete the form

General Requirements:

appointment at research institution; appointment must be under the jurisdiction of the receiving institution

degree requirements (possibly doctorate)

Must be submitted:

project description

IRB approval

approved security plan

roster of research and IT staff who can access or view the data or computer where data are hosted.

confidentiality pledges for all people on roster

Some require:

CV's

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Any public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

Sarri, Rosemary. DECISION-MAKING IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, AND OHIO, 1999-2000. ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research [producer], 2000. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2003. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03581.v1

The user guide, codebooks, and data collection
instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The juvenile justice system in the United States,
implemented at the turn of the twentieth century as a legal and social
institution for children, has undergone significant changes over the
last quarter century. The goals of the juvenile justice system have
always been multiple, beginning with rehabilitation, the primary goal
when the juvenile court was established. More recently, policies
advocating accountability seem to have predominated over other goals
of the court, and concern exists that structured decision-making (SDM)
in support of individual accountability has begun to fundamentally
change the juvenile justice system. SDM is generally defined as a
formal and standardized procedure to guide decision-makers by defining
the criteria they must use in their deliberations and eventual
decisions. Major types of SDM are risk assessment, needs assessment,
and security level classification. This study examined the use of SDM
in state correctional agencies in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Ohio and in juvenile courts in three counties in each of those
states. The project had six specific goals: (1) To assess the effects
of recent revisions in juvenile codes on decision-making processes in
juvenile courts, (2) to identify correlates of processing and
placement decisions, (3) to document and analyze the policies and
practices of individual accountability as an organizing principle that
defines the relationships among public agencies and citizens, (4) to
assess the utility of various types of SDM in sample courts, (5) to
assess the context for decision-making to find causes and correlates
of case processing decisions and the patterns of accountability and
structured decision-making, and (6) to assess practitioners' perspectives
about structured decision-making, classification, and risk and needs
assessment.

Study Design:
Data were collected in phases from March 1999 to
August 2000 during periodic site visits. The first site visits were
made to units of state government involved with the court. Using data
from state site visits, which usually lasted three days, the selection
process for courts and counties was refined. Once courts were
tentatively selected, chief judges at each of the selected courts were
contacted to determine their willingness to participate in the
study. The second set of site visits was to each of the selected
courts. In several courts, surveys were not distributed on the first
visit but were mailed and distributed by the court. However, in-person
distribution of the questionnaires was more effective in securing high
response rates. Probation officers, judges and referees, prosecutors,
and defense attorneys were interviewed in each of the 12 courts. The
surveys were based on previous surveys of juvenile court
decision-makers and SDM, for example, Champion (1994) and Barton and
Creekmore (1994), which were modified to fit the study. Each survey
contained a core set of questions regarding juvenile justice
administration, but modifications relevant to particular
decision-makers were made. The survey was pre-tested in two counties
and further changes were made based on those results. The survey was
self-administered in each of the courts. The names of potential
respondents were obtained through the assistance of court
administrators and/or department heads.

Sample:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio were selected
because they are contiguous states in the same geographic region, and
it was assumed that they would share common properties, such that the
states' general environments would not be a significant factor
affecting interpretation of the research findings. Among factors that
these four states have in common are the following: concentration of
basic industry, extensive farming in rural counties, one or more major
urban areas, and significant racial and ethnic diversity. Another
criterion for selecting these states was their variation in terms of
characteristics related to case processing and juvenile justice. The
states varied greatly in the availability and types of state resources
at local as compared to state levels. In each state, three counties
were chosen based on selection criteria designed to include a variety
of contexts for SDM. First, a populous urban jurisdiction was selected
in each state. These jurisdictions had large case volumes and pressure
to process cases quickly, as some of the most serious social problems,
such as poverty and high arrest rates, occurred in the large urban
jurisdictions. Second, a community was selected that provided a range
of community resources for dispositional programs. These resources
would provide many dispositional alternatives, suggesting more complex
decision-making. Third, a community was selected that had several
social problems but limited dispositional resources. These communities
faced processing pressures without resources, making it likely that
decision-making would be simpler and more constrained. Mitigating the
choice of counties were such things as a court's willingness to
participate and geography. A few counties were unable to participate
for a variety of reasons, such as court reorganization or staff
turnover. The study sought to avoid geographic concentration in the
sample. In one state, most of the large and medium-sized counties were
geographically concentrated, so in that state smaller courts were
selected. The study attempted to survey all probation officers, judges
and referees, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in each of the 12
counties.

Data Source:

Data were collected from self-administered
questionnaires.

Description of Variables:
All respondents were asked to answer a core set of
questions as well as questions that related to their specific role as
judge, probation officer, prosecutor, or public defender, in the
juvenile justice system. All respondents answered questions on their
general views of juvenile justice, which included questions on the
importance of rehabilitation, punishment, and due process. There were
also core questions on disposition objectives, what factors turn
juveniles away from further involvement in delinquency and crime, the
use of SDM, the value of SDM, whether decisions recommended by SDM are
too lenient, about right, or too restrictive, the meaning of
accountability, and inter-organizational and community relations,
including questions on community groups' influence over the court,
similarity of the respondent's views to the views of others in the
community, and the working relationship between the court and
community groups. In addition, prosecutors and public defenders
answered questions on the factors that influenced their decision to
file a petition, recommend a disposition, and make a waiver decision
to adult court. Judges and probation officers answered additional
questions on the availability of resources for the juvenile court in
their county, factors that influenced them when making a disposition,
and the usefulness of SDM, including questions on situations in which
the respondent had overridden SDM recommendations. Judges also
answered questions on judicial discretion. The probation survey data
include several derived variables. All respondents provided background
information, including age, gender, ethnic/racial background, marital
status, number of children in certain age groups, past job experience
in criminal justice, percentage of cases handled that were juvenile,
duties unrelated to juvenile justice, job satisfaction, attendance of
professional training meetings, and which organizations provided the
training. Probation officers were also questioned on the highest level
of education attained.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:2003-06-05

Version History:

2006-03-30 File UG3581.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File CQ3581.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

Download Statistics

Located within ICPSR, NACJD is sponsored by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, and the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).